Court Says Free Speech Rights For Prisoners Not 'Clearly Established,' Gives Pass To Retaliatory Actions By Officials
from the 'because-you-asked-wrong,-we-won't-examine-the-unexamined-issue' dept
While it's true that prisoners enjoy fewer rights than Americans who've never been convicted of a crime, their rights are by no means nonexistent. Except in some cases... where bits and pieces of protected speech vanish into the gaps between established prison guidelines and case law directly addressing the matter.
That's an admittedly unclear summation of the appeals court decision finding a federal prisoner's rights weren't violated when he was removed from a halfway house and placed in solitary confinement in retaliation for publishing an article about his prison experience.
Daniel McGowan, an environmental activist whose prosecution for "eco terrorism" was the subject of an award-winning film, was finishing his seven-year term at a Brooklyn halfway house when he wrote a HuffPost blog post that contained details about a secretive prison where he had spent years in isolation.
There was nothing particularly revealing about what he wrote: Much of it had been made public in an ongoing civil rights lawsuit he and other low-risk prisoners filed in federal court in Washington challenging their placement there, for no other reason than their political views or who they are.
Even if McGowan had published something more revealing, it still shouldn't have mattered. The law used to punish him for publishing the piece was no longer on the books at the time a prison official decided to pull McGowan from the halfway house and take him to a detention center in Brooklyn. From the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision [PDF]:
McGowan alleges that, shortly after his article appeared online, defendant Tracy Rivers, the Residential Reentry Manager at the New York Residential Reentry Management Office of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), determined that he should be issued an incident report and remanded to a federal detention center. The incident report stated that McGowan had violated “BOP Program Statement no. 1480.05 dated September 21, 2000; 540.62 page 5, section (d),” which provided that “an inmate currently confined in an institution may not be employed or act as a reporter or publish under a byline” (the “Byline Regulation”).
The problem with citing this guideline is that the Bureau of Prisons had rescinded it in 2010, (belatedly) following a 2007 Colorado district court decision finding the regulation unconstitutional. Unfortunately for McGowan, despite the regulation being nonexistent when it was used to put him in solitary confinement, the appeals court has found that there's no Second Circuit precedent clearly asserting First Amendment protections for federal prisoners.
Whether or not we would agree with that analysis is beside the point. We conclude only that, in light of the different interests at stake, our case law establishing a prisoner’s right to file a lawsuit or grievance does not clearly establish a prisoner’s right to publish an article under a byline. Indeed, the only authority that McGowan has identified that involved expression similar to that at issue in this case is a district court opinion, which, of course, is not binding.
That erases McGowan's retaliation claim. The official who made the decision to confine McGowan is entitled to qualified immunity as no "clearly established right" was violated -- just the use of federal prisoner guideline that had been removed by the BOP three years earlier.
By reaching these conclusions, the appeals court is able to dodge thornier issues -- like further clarifying the limits of First Amendment protections for federal prisoners.
As one of McGowan's lawyers, Alexander Reinert, put it, the decision was silent about how "prisoners may express themselves to the outside world."
Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo, said he's disappointed in the ruling and is considering asking for a rehearing. Ryan Grim, HuffPost's Washington bureau chief, called the decision "appalling on its face."
Nothing but stasis from the Second Circuit Appeals Court. It notes that no "clearly established right" was violated here, but passes on the opportunity to more clearly define the boundaries of prisoners' First Amendment rights. A rehearing could fix this by pushing the court towards examining the issue it overlooked during its decision, but until it does so, prisons in the Second Circuit will still be able to get away with using nonexistent guidelines to punish prisoners for otherwise protected speech.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, prisoners
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting how the government decided to send him back to prison without a trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rules of law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The rules of law
Courts have made it clear, law enforcement can decide when, where, and how to enforce the law even if it is wrong and even if not enforcing the law resulting in your loss of property, limb, or life.
Law Enforcement in no is required to enforce any law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The rules of law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You have rights when we say you have rights" ?
Meanwhile, before tossing someone back into prison, the government should at least have to establish that he is violating some actual law that is currently on the books.
BTW, we need a serious reexamination of qualified and absolute immunity. No law degree here, but my understanding is that those were both largely made up out of whole cloth and have pretty much no statutory basis. They are behind much of the lack of accountability that enables misbehavior by law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and (apparently) prison officials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "You have rights when we say you have rights" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's see, you committed a crime, violated the law. You're not in prison for a vacation, you're there to spend time in prison. Because of that, there are certain things you do not do, certain rights you do not have, and pissing off the prison officials is NOT advisable under any circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, but would not not allow ourselves to become the barbarians we convicted & imprisoned them for being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, so you're saying the BOP lied? Citation please, or you're full of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you want prisoners to have more rights, then work to get a law passed that specifically grants them those rights which are not currently part of any particular law.
Remember, the prisons do have very wide latitude in limiting speech in and out of their establishments INCLUDING half way houses. They can use that discretionary power as they see fit.
Let's just say this guy is a "piece of work", and really seems to have been intent on pissing people off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First of all rights should be assumed to exist unless they are explicitly removed. What the courts are doing here by restricting the rights of prisoners is arbitrarily inventing laws that don't exist.
The first amendment says "congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". The implication is clear, limiting free speech for prisoners is a law limiting free speech and so there is no reason it should not apply to prisoners.
"then work to get a law passed that specifically grants them those rights which are not currently part of any particular law."
It is part of the first amendment.
"Remember, the prisons do have very wide latitude in limiting speech in and out of their establishments INCLUDING half way houses."
This only makes sense if those limitations of speech involve orders from criminals to carry out executions, for example. Not if they simply involve criticisms to the institution.
"They can use that discretionary power as they see fit."
A statement like this is so unacceptable, it amazes me someone could say something so stupid and insane.
They can't, or at least shouldn't be, allowed to use their discretionary power in a way that discriminates against race for instance. They should not be allowed to use their discretionary power in a way that is either socially harmful or unnecessarily harmful/hurtful to the prisoner (ie: excessive force). and they should not be able to use their discretionary power just to protect their reputation from criticism.
"Let's just say this guy is a "piece of work", and really seems to have been intent on pissing people off."
The whole purpose of free speech laws is to allow the expression of controversial speech. Speech that may upset people, even and especially if intentional, is exactly the speech that's protected.
If he said something incorrect and defamatory that's something that can be handled separately. But his freedom to express how he was treated is exactly the type of speech that's protected. and if the expression of how he was treated upsets the institution that treated him that way perhaps the problem is with how he was treated and not with his speech.
As a functional democracy his ability to freely express how he was treated is important so that we can democratically decide if his treatment is acceptable. But, by now, it's clear by this post and many many others that you are no fan of democracy at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Won't that just make the dick go deeper?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yet when there is any push back against this the police and school and government authorities cry that they can't even kick a disruptive student out of class anymore and they have no way of punishing any student that acts up. The cops complain that everything they now say is held with less weight in court than it used to be unless more proof is provided and that's so unfair.
Yet I can provide you stories that I heard from others where cops either lied or were mistaken and where schools suspended or threatened to suspend students for very silly reasons. I feel like the cops and schools are crying that the system must actually work reasonably and that cops are upset at the idea that people should be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because anything a cop says should automatically be assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. That cops need no other evidence beyond their word. But then cops are upset about the body cameras that can provide them the proof they need because it's just too much headache to manage (and, to some extent, I can see the logistical problems it imposes). Just listening to their mentality is almost incredible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't understand
"...our case law establishing a prisoner’s right to file a lawsuit or grievance does not clearly establish a prisoner’s right to publish an article under a byline."
...wait, what? Wasn't the regulation he was being moved on ESTABLISHED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL? How is that NOT PRECEDENCE?
IANAL, someone please HELP ME understand this!
The regulation was unconstitutional, but we haven't determined yet whether what the regulation was designed to prevent IS a constitutional right? The negative does not imply the positive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't understand
A lower/subordinate court (referred to in the first quote you gave as a "district court") decided that the regulation was unconstitutional. That decision may establish that unconstitutionality for the jurisdiction of that lower court, but it is not enough to establish such for the broader jurisdiction of the circuit court.
Provided that the case at hand does not arise from actions which occurred within the jurisdiction of the disctrict court in question, the circuit court's logic seems solid, if unfortunate and arguably unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The First Amendment clearly says "except for prisoners"...
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“We Find These Truths To Be Self-Evident...”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: “We Find These Truths To Be Self-Evident...”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact, I rather suspect if they had acted more reasonably and had simply chosen to tell McGowan, "you can't do that", he could have made a call and perhaps eventually, someone would have informed the relevant prison machine operators that, "oh yes he can".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What makes you think that they didn't already know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]